• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged General Holocaust denial discussion Part IV

MGK replied to it at the time.

Can you link me to holocaust deniers: Carlo Mattogno, Jurgen Graf or Thomas Kues formal rebuttal of Dr Colls forensic report into Treblinka II extermination camp?

Colls, C. :Finding Treblinka. Archaeological Investigations at Treblinka Extermination and Labour Camps, (2014) in English and Polish.
 
Originally Posted by Pacal
EtienneSC is simply here to press the reset button for the 99th or 10,000th or 100,000th time, like all revisionists do.

Indeed, there's no point rehashing old material. However, there have been some developments over the last few years. The British Psychological Warfare Executive files from the war have been released under the 70 year rule, for example, and there is an academic project to review them.

Doesn't stop so-called Revisionists from dusting off old crap and refuted nonsense. And the British Psychological Warfare Executive files do not help the Revisionist case. Unless the Revisionists resort to their usual tactics of lying, fabrication and distortion.

Originally Posted by Pacal
Of course since EtienneSC left the last time the revisionist / denial case has gotten more threadbare more stupid then it was then. (Hard has it is to believe that something so already braindead could get worst!)

How has this happened?

No need to take you seriously after a comment like that.

Originally Posted by Pacal
My general view is that so-called revisionists are A), dying off, B), getting increasingly deranged and idiotic in their arguments and C), the scholarly mask is more and more coming off to reveal the anti-semitic idiots underneath.

Yes, we're all dying off. Robert Faurisson died in 2019 for example.

Ah yes old Faurisson who supported free speech by in his last years suing someone and losing a libel case. Old Faurisson who was torn to pieces academically repeatedly. And old Faurisson who believed anti-semitic canards with ease and screamed about Jews ruling. Of course the mask is coming off behind the academic posturing is good old hysterical crap.

Originally Posted by Pacal
The revisionist case, (Lying conspiracy theory paranoia with a massive dose of racism.), has not been made it has been refuted and annihilated again and again and belongs with nonsense like the Flat Earth, Creationism, Crystal healing etc.

Good, Have their been any scholarly refutations in the last 4 years. What are they?

Another reason to not take you seriously. And yet again so-called Revisionism is still in the land of Crystal healing and chakras.

Originally Posted by Pacal
The number of serious Academics and Researchers who take them seriously is miniscule. Of course they continue their lying propaganda and continue to portray themselves has martyrs etc. Their victim complex is amusing.

There have been a few retired academics who have expressed a degree of support for revisionism in the last few years, but of course it is career suicide within western academia for people with salaries.

Yet again more martyr complex crap. But then being a Geologist who thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old is basically career suicide, and so is asserting the world is flat. Or asserting, if your a Historian of Greece and Rome, that Alexander the Great never existed, Julius Caesar is a myth etc.

Originally Posted by Pacal
So sorry the "happy day" that revisionists envision when Jews are viewed by practically everyone has satanic, lying anti-humans doesn't look like it will ever come. I hope that this frustration causes revisionists pain.

I appreciate that you have a kind of Kommando comics view of the issue as a contest of goodies and baddies in which you are the goodies.

Absolutely hilarious. The bottom line is that it is so-called Revisionists who view themselves has engaged in a contest against the Satanic forces of evil, personified in the "Jew", who by manipulation and awesome power have have foisted on the world for the purpose of controlling it the evil "lie" that is the Holocaust. Faurisson was a perfect example of that mentality. And of course when talking among themselves the mask comes off and the anti-semitic drivel bursts forth.

In this contest the Revisionists believe they are the sons of light against the sons of darkness. They are the "goodies" and the evil Jews and their supporters are the "baddies".

The great majority of Revisionists are inspired by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and their view of how the world works not much different.
 
Last edited:
Can you link me to holocaust deniers: Carlo Mattogno, Jurgen Graf or Thomas Kues formal rebuttal of Dr Colls forensic report into Treblinka II extermination camp?

Colls, C. :Finding Treblinka. Archaeological Investigations at Treblinka Extermination and Labour Camps, (2014) in English and Polish.
I was referring to Kues' essay:
https://codoh.com/library/document/comments-on-treblinka-statements-by-caroline/en/
and MGK's:
[URL="http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=8"]http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=8[/URL]
See pages 926,1051-1064, which discusses the coloured map).

There is an "Editor's Addendum" (dated 2020) in:
http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=8
at page 323.
 
... the British Psychological Warfare Executive files do not help the Revisionist case. Unless the Revisionists resort to their usual tactics of lying, fabrication and distortion.
They contain information about the propagation of the gas chamber stories as rumours. As they are still being gone through, are you not simply guessing?

No need to take you seriously after a comment like that.
So you can't back up what you say with references.

Ah yes old Faurisson who supported free speech by in his last years suing someone and losing a libel case. Old Faurisson who was torn to pieces academically repeatedly. And old Faurisson who believed anti-semitic canards with ease and screamed about Jews ruling. Of course the mask is coming off behind the academic posturing is good old hysterical crap.
French revisionists generally do not support "free speech" in the sense of a supposed right to assert what can be shown in a court of law to be untrue. Faurisson replied to his academic and other critics (Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Jean-Claude Pressac) in concise little books, which it is illegal to advertise or distribute commercially in France, so many people don't know they exist.

Absolutely hilarious. The bottom line is that it is so-called Revisionists who view themselves has engaged in a contest against the Satanic forces of evil, personified in the "Jew", who by manipulation and awesome power have have foisted on the world for the purpose of controlling it the evil "lie" that is the Holocaust. Faurisson was a perfect example of that mentality. And of course when talking among themselves the mask comes off and the anti-semitic drivel bursts forth.

In this contest the Revisionists believe they are the sons of light against the sons of darkness. They are the "goodies" and the evil Jews and their supporters are the "baddies".

The great majority of Revisionists are inspired by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and their view of how the world works not much different.
I think that there has been some change on this in the last few years in the direction of religious faith. The principal concern for many was to defend Germany's record from anti-German rhetoric. But there has been a move towards Catholicism on the part of some on the right (not revisionists specifically) because of the influence of E. Michael Jones. The revisionist analysis has generally seen British, American and Soviet propaganda as the source or main validator of atrocity stories. It is said that the American OSS funded Eugen Kogon's book Der SS Staat, for example. However, the stories still play a part in some Jewish identity literature and activism.
 

Not one rebuttal point raised by Kues.


Not one rebuttal pint raised on any of these pages. They are actually just holocaust denial handbooks and the first one doesn't mention Coll's forensic investigation at all.

Why do you and your neo nazi, holocaust denier buddies lie so much?

:big:
 
They contain information about the propagation of the gas chamber stories as rumours. As they are still being gone through, are you not simply guessing?

No I am not. Of course when so-called Revisionists look at the material we will see the usual huge mass of omission, distortion, fabrication and out and out lying.

So you can't back up what you say with references.

Yes I can but with you there is no point.

French revisionists generally do not support "free speech" in the sense of a supposed right to assert what can be shown in a court of law to be untrue. Faurisson replied to his academic and other critics (Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Jean-Claude Pressac) in concise little books, which it is illegal to advertise or distribute commercially in France, so many people don't know they exist.

You don't seem familiar with the case; Faurisson sued for libel a French paper which had described him has a racist and anti-semite and a couple of other nasty things. The Court ruled that that the statements were not libelous because they were true. So Faurisson's attempt to attack the free speech of others failed. Faurisson's replies to the authors you mentioned were utterly pathetic and easily torn to shreds. Faurisson remained to the end a liar, fabricator and an hysterical anti-semitic loon. As for his books they might have some use as toilet paper.

I think that there has been some change on this in the last few years in the direction of religious faith. The principal concern for many was to defend Germany's record from anti-German rhetoric. But there has been a move towards Catholicism on the part of some on the right (not revisionists specifically) because of the influence of E. Michael Jones. The revisionist analysis has generally seen British, American and Soviet propaganda as the source or main validator of atrocity stories. It is said that the American OSS funded Eugen Kogon's book Der SS Staat, for example. However, the stories still play a part in some Jewish identity literature and activism.

More hilarity. The "revisionist analysis" is where it belongs in the territory of Qanon, Black Helicopters, Reptilians and assorted other conspiracy idiocy. It's "analysis" will continue to rely on omissions, lies, fabrications etc., massive amounts of conspiracy rubbish and it will continue to be mocked, ridiculed for the utter stupidity it is. The revisionists will continue to see themselves has the sons of light against the source of all evil in the world the satanic Jew. (In their insane view of the world.) So they will fight according to the instructions of the "great one", Adolf Hitler in his will to fight to the end the "international Jew".
 
David Irving's New Biography of Himmler

I'd like to open a discussion of David Irving's new biography of Heinrich Himmler, True Himmler (Focal Point, 2021). There doesn't seem much point putting in a substitute team performance on revisionist literature, which we can all read first hand if we want, though I can share information if that's what's wanted.

The book is in two volumes and only the first has appeared so far. Volume One only goes up to 1939. It still seems to me relevant to the question of motivation, even from an intentionalist or functionalist standpoint, given the key role the SS is supposed to have played (and did play) in persecution of the Jews through the concentration camp system and Aktion Reinhardt.

In the first chapter, Irving rehearses his theory that Himmler was killed by British officers perhaps acting on secret orders.This tends to support the idea that there were attempts to manipulate politics by the allies, in this case the British, through control of information and activities that would be considered illegal in a non-military context. This (alleged) involvement in criminality would be necessary to keep such activities secret.

In the second chapter, he describes Himmler's early life and the provenance of various diaries he has used. He presents Himmler's family and Himmler himself as active Catholic Christians. He makes the point that Himmler's reputation suffered after the end of the war when the SS were blamed for the concentration camp system and declared a criminal organisation.

Hence there is a marked difference in tone between post-war denunciations and earlier testimony about Himmler's personality, integrity and so on. Himmler described himself as basically a "policeman" and thought his reputation was one he shared with members of that profession. Irving points out that he died at a fairly young age (44).
 
Why are we expected to take seriously anything from someone as thoroughly discredited as Irving?

EtienneSC is simply trying to press the reset button. Although I find him using Irving to be hilarious. The guy has been thoroughly discredited and virtually no one takes him seriously has an academic anymore. Along with Richard Evans' vicious putdown, https://phdn.org/negation/irving/EvansReport.pdf, in his huge analysis for the lipstadt, Irving libel trial. (There is also Evans book Lying about Hitler.) Where Irving sought to curtail Lipstadt's freedom of speech and lost!

But for fun see John Lukas' The Hitler of History, Vintage Books, New York, 1997. On pages 26-29 & 229-232. At p. 229-230 Lukas says:

Few reviewers and critics of Irving's books including professional historians, have bothered to examine them carefully enough. Had they done so, they would have found that many of Irving's references and quotations are not verifiable. In his Hitler's War, for example there are many errata in names and dates; more important, unverifiable and unconvincing assertions abound.

And Lukas gives examples in the main text and footnotes: At page 230 we read:

Thus Hitler, in Irving's breathless prose, "evidently made some promise about the Jews" (there is no evidence); General Schorner in April 1945 fought "a convincing victory" (it was not a victory, and it convinced no one);...

And so on and on. And on page 231 we learn in the footnote that Hitler's War, "...has many references to 'Hungarian archives in Budapest' without dates, places, or file or page numbers."
 
To continue with my initial read-through of David Irving's True Himmler (2020):

Organisation Consul (OC). This seems to indicate a breakdown of the rule of law and thus a coarsening of political attitudes. Himmler graduates with a degree that Irving describes as about the equivalent of a BSc in Agronomy.

Chapter Nine - Inflation and pre-Putsch politics

... Snipped Irving's nonsense...

To which I reply:

The English court found that Irving was an active Holocaust denier, antisemite and racist, who "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence". In addition, the court found that Irving's books had distorted the history of Hitler's role in the Holocaust to depict Hitler in a favourable light.

Taken from the wikipedia article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving

If this book is like any of Irving's other books, it'll be a demonstrable tissue of lies. I look forwards to your attempts at defending it.
 
Why are you using anything by Irving for anything other than toilet paper?

The man is proven liar and racist who has been shown to have a less than honest approach to evaluating evidence. On nearly everything interaction he has had with a professional historian he has had his ass handed to him. The only people who consider him to be credible are cranks, racists and nazis.
 
You can provide references to the book by links etc. and any facts or claims you want to discuss but your chapter by chapter accounting moves you into a Rule 6 breach.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: darat
 
You can provide references to the book by links etc. and any facts or claims you want to discuss but your chapter by chapter accounting moves you into a Rule 6 breach.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: darat
I'm sorry that chapter by chapter summaries are not allowed on this thread. My summaries have been moved to a separate thread. I'd be happy to continue on that other thread, but it's marked as "closed".

On the renunciation of Catholicism point, this may be related to the requirement for the SS to renounce denominations, but with the option to remain "gottglaubig". There is another related point that I could make as part of the summary. i.e. Himmler's summary of Hitler's religious views (on page 365).
 
I'm sorry that chapter by chapter summaries are not allowed on this thread. My summaries have been moved to a separate thread. I'd be happy to continue on that other thread, but it's marked as "closed".

Wow. 8 years a member and you still don't know what AAH is for. That does not bode well for your understanding of anything else, does it?
 
He doesn't care, just want to show off how much he loves a bunch of losers and reading books about those losers by discredited proven liars.
 
Wow. 8 years a member and you still don't know what AAH is for. That does not bode well for your understanding of anything else, does it?
I don't see "AAH" in the Help section. The nearest an acronym finder comes up with is "Americans against Hate". Does this mean there is no way to discuss a book on this forum? That seems a bit limiting.
 
I don't see "AAH" in the Help section. The nearest an acronym finder comes up with is "Americans against Hate". Does this mean there is no way to discuss a book on this forum? That seems a bit limiting.
There are many ways to discuss a book that don't involve posting tedious turgid or purple prose chapter by chapter summaries.
 

Back
Top Bottom